Does reduced cough capacity in minor thoracic injury is associated with atelectasis development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context : Minor thoracic injury causes non-negligible pain that could reduce the cough capacity and can cause infectious problems and atelectasis. Objectives : To describe the association between atelectasis and cough capacity, and to assess the concordance of cough capacity perceptions between health professionals and the patient. Design :The data were collected from 2006 to 2012 in 4 Canadian emergency departments (ED). Participants : Patients with a chief complaint of minor thoracic injury, ≥ 16 years old, discharged home from the ED after an evaluation by the attending physician, were included. They have three visits, at the ED, 7-day and 14-day follow-up. The initial ED visit included medical evaluation, data collection and mandatory chest and rib radiography. Main outcome measures : The presence of atelectasis was noted at the initial ED and subsequent visits.Participants cough capacity was noted by a physician, a nurse and the patients himself at subsequentvisits and classified as good, diminished, weak /absent. Results : Among the 1474 patients, 8.89% (95% CI: 7.55 - 10.47), 7.33% (95% CI: 6.04 – 8.89) and 4.63% (95% CI: 3.51 – 6.09) had atelectasis at the initial visit, 7-day and 14-day follow-up visit respectively. Except for patients with weak or absent cough capacity at the 7-day visit, which had a 2.89 (95%CI: 2.05 – 4.05) folds atelectasis proportion relative to those with a good cough capacity, they were no associations between cough capacity and atelectasis. The weighted kappa coefficient suggests a moderate to substantial agreement between the cough capacity measured by patients and nurses (0.52 to 0.65). Conclusion : There was not strong evidence of an association between atelectasis and cough capacity and the best agreement between cough capacity perception was between nurses and patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".